The cop opens the door himself in an attempt to justify entering the house with no warrant?
No part of that makes sense.
“Your honor, the door was open so I didn’t need a warrant to go inside the house and search it.”
4 Likes
If they’re just trying to get the guy, and they don’t need evidence from the location to prosecute, they really don’t care as much about warrants and shit as TV would lead you to believe.
I opened a door to talk to a cop once. I left the screen door latched. He just opened the screen door himself, without asking. His buddy let himself in the back door at the same time.
The guy they were looking for hadn’t lived at the address for months. They weren’t even sure what he looked like. They demanded to see ID from all of us, a demand I personally ignored, and then they somehow realized how badly they were fucking up and left without saying anything else.
7 Likes
This is a bit of a new thing for BoingBoing, to have the video camera as (potentially) a force for good. But I do think it is the right thing. I don’t like being surveiled. I would like to know I was not being surveiled at home. But the impartial gathering of evidence by a camera should be at least Lawful Neutral.
We don’t need cameras everywhere. We just need a camera on each cop. LIke a detective’s badge, it should be part of their status. If it isn’t up and running then they are not properly on duty. The camera record could be requested and searched by the public.
1 Like
Seriously.
The police made a statement that was clearly fraudulent.
The door was not open.
When I sign a police statement there is a warning that it is a legal document and lying on it is considered perjury. The police should be treated exactly the same way, if not more harshly.
Summary conviction for perjury.
If that voids their employment, career and pension schemes then maybe they should start obeying the law.
9 Likes
It is a common logical fallacy that a uneducated yahoo might make.
Cops are supposed to be certified, trained and educated in executing their responsibilities inside the law.
Yeah, yeah I know, I have a rich internal fantasy life.
5 Likes
On two occasions I have had strangers wander into my home on the grounds that my door wasn’t locked. One was my batshit insane neighbor, and the other was a white South African, make of that what you will, but my point is some people have truly weird ideas about unlocked front doors.
I mean, that’s just a tangential observation. Police officers need to know exactly how private property works if their continued employment is to be tolerated.
1 Like
i don’t know where you live but in the states most police know exactly what they can get away with. this is why in any situation in which the police are at my door, i step out of the door and close it firmly behind me. there are many reasons why they might go through an open door but a door that is closed and the doorknob latched can only be entered for one of about four reasons–my permission, a search warrant, an arrest warrant for a resident of the house, and exigent circumstances such as a fleeing fugitive or a threat to life and health.
5 Likes
either that, or they train them to be exactly like this.
9 Likes
You’re right that cops should be trained to not make this mistake and stay within bounds. But it’s not an uneducated yahoo logical fallacy. Very smart and educated people make it all the time.
Here’s a very controversial example: gun control. A lot of people feel that banning guns is a good thing. There’s no problem having that idea. Unfortunately, many proposals on how to do it run afoul of the law (e.g. the Constitution). Yet there is still a deep feeling that the potential good should be enough to let us ignore or reinterpret the law.
I’m not arguing against gun control. Just using a strong example to show it’s easy to want to take shortcuts in the name of doing good. Which is why you are right that cops should be trained not to take shortcuts.
Unfortunately, cops are explicitly taught shortcuts. Usually proper shortcuts. Eminent danger situation shortcuts. But probably not taught very well on when that’s actually true and not just imagined.
Why doesn’t anyone ever complete that saying? It goes, “A few bad apples SPOILS THE BUNCH.”
Every time you hear that saying…remember that the bunch is spoiled.
9 Likes
You could just change the law, ie amend the amendment.
I know Americans get all misty-eyed about their constitution, but a law having been written two hundred years ago makes it less likely to be relevant, not more. Even a really basic change, like requiring people to have a license to own a gun, would be a massive help.
4 Likes
I meant same as you, but both now that you mention the other interpretation. Just seemed like your statement kind of soft-pedaled the degree of the act shown, which I found traumatic to watch so can only imagine how that kid feels. Wasn’t arguing, just adding emphasis.
I’ve been illegally detained, searched, and unduly jailed a couple times in my earlier years. Nothing as scary as what @navarro described above, as there were never multiple guns aimed at me, but enough to have left me with a visceral distrust and antipathy towards cops in general. And also, they’ve never been able to help in the rare situations I needed such help. F*@# em.
Precisely. That’s the non-shortcut, follow the law, method. But has more steps, requires more consensus, and takes longer. Which is why people suggest things like requiring a license and suggesting that the amendment doesn’t apply. A situation where “the massive help” should be sufficient to allow some wiggle room on legal interpretation.
We all do this sort of logic. Then we act surprised when cops do it.
99% of those give the other 1% a bad name!
3 Likes
I understand. Sorry, I wasn’t trying to minimize this particular act*. I was trying to make a generalization that would include anyone with power. From librarians, to cops, to government officials, and so on. More power leads to more consequences.
- Sometimes people think I’m defending something when actually I’m trying to understand the root cause of it. Understanding police violence is not condoning it, no more than understanding ebola is condoning it.
I’m guessing it’s prudent to do so if there are legal cases outstanding?
It’s the last one that we seem to hear about most of the time. They feel justified threatening other people’s life and health in the process of confirming that a missing person’s life and health aren’t at risk.
3 Likes
You think they’ll lose their jobs? That’s charmingly naive.
They’ll get a six week paid vacation. The Department will decide they did nothing wrong.
The city’s insurance policy will make a modest payout.
2 Likes
I could see the police themselves censoring footage like that prior to release because of an outstanding legal issue.
But this video didn’t come from the police. I’m confused what the station’s or victim’s interest would be in obscuring it like this.
Or until it comes out of individual officers’ pensions.
3 Likes
